G.R. No. L-42926 September 13, 1985
It undertook the said voyage on a special
PEDRO VASQUEZ, SOLEDAD ORTEGA, CLETO B.
BAGAIPO, AGUSTINA VIRTUDES, ROMEO
VASQUEZ and MAXIMINA CAINAY, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS
PIONEER LINES, INC., respondents.
Emilio D. Castellanes for petitioners.
Apolinario A. Abantao for private respondents.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
This litigation involves a claim for damages for the
loss at sea of petitioners' respective children after the
shipwreck of MV Pioneer Cebu due to typhoon
"Klaring" in May of 1966.
The factual antecedents, as summarized by the trial
Court and adopted by respondent Court, and which
we find supported by the record, read as follows:
When the inter-island vessel MV "Pioneer Cebu"
left the Port of Manila in the early morning of
May 15, 1966 bound for Cebu, it had on board
the spouses Alfonso Vasquez and Filipinas
Bagaipo and a four-year old boy, Mario Marlon
Vasquez, among her passengers. The MV
"Pioneer Cebu" encountered typhoon "Klaring"
and struck a reef on the southern part of
Malapascua Island, located somewhere north of
the island of Cebu and subsequently sunk. The
aforementioned passengers were unheard from
since then.
Plaintiffs Pedro Vasquez and Soledad Ortega
are the parents of Alfonso Vasquez; plaintiffs
Cleto Bagaipo and Agustina Virtudes are the
parents of Filipinas Bagaipo; and plaintiffs
Romeo Vasquez and Maxima Cainay are the
parents of the child, Mario Marlon Vasquez.
They seek the recovery of damages due to the
loss of Alfonso Vasquez, Filipinas Bagaipo and
Mario Marlon Vasquez during said voyage.
At the pre-trial, the defendant admitted its
contract of carriage with Alfonso Vasquez,
Filipinas Bagaipo and Mario Marlon Vasquez,
and the fact of the sinking of the MV "Pioneer
Cebu". The issues of the case were limited to
the defenses alleged by the defendant that the
sinking of the vessel was caused by force
majeure, and that the defendant's liability had
been extinguished by the total loss of the
vessel.
The evidence on record as to the circumstances
of the last voyage of the MV "Pioneer Cebu"
came mainly, if not exclusively, from the
defendant. The MV "Pioneer Cebu" was owned
and operated by the defendant and used in the
transportation of goods and passengers in the
inter-island shipping. Scheduled to leave the
Port of Manila at 9:00 p.m. on May 14, 1966, it
actually left port at 5:00 a.m. the following day,
May 15, 1966. It had a passenger capacity of
three hundred twenty-two (322) including the
crew.
permit issued by the Collector of Customs
inasmuch as, upon inspection, it was found to
be without an emergency electrical power
system. The special permit authorized the
vessel to carry only two hundred sixty (260)
passengers due to the said deficiency and for
lack of safety devices for 322 passengers (Exh.
2). A headcount was made of the passengers
on board, resulting on the tallying of 168 adults
and 20 minors, although the passengers
manifest only listed 106 passengers. It has been
admitted, however, that the headcount is not
reliable inasmuch as it was only done by one
man on board the vessel.
When the vessel left Manila, its officers were
already aware of the typhoon Klaring building up
somewhere in Mindanao. There being no
typhoon signals on the route from Manila to
Cebu, and the vessel having been cleared by
the Customs authorities, the MV "Pioneer Cebu"
left on its voyage to Cebu despite the typhoon.
When it reached Romblon Island, it was decided
not to seek shelter thereat, inasmuch as the
weather condition was still good. After passing
Romblon and while near Jintotolo island, the
barometer still indicated the existence of good
weather condition continued until the vessel
approached Tanguingui island. Upon passing
the latter island, however, the weather suddenly
changed and heavy rains felt Fearing that due
to zero visibility, the vessel might hit Chocolate
island group, the captain ordered a reversal of
the course so that the vessel could 'weather out'
the typhoon by facing the winds and the waves
in the open. Unfortunately, at about noontime on
May 16, 1966, the vessel struck a reef near
Malapascua island, sustained leaks and
eventually sunk, bringing with her Captain Floro
Yap who was in command of the vessel.
Due to the loss of their children, petitioners sued for
damages before the Court of First Instance of Manila
(Civil Case No. 67139). Respondent defended on the
plea of force majeure, and the extinction of its liability
by the actual total loss of the vessel.
After proper proceedings, the trial Court awarded
damages, thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
ordering the defendant to pay:
(a) Plaintiffs Pedro Vasquez and Soledad
Ortega the sums of P15,000.00 for the loss of
earning capacity of the deceased Alfonso
Vasquez, P2,100.00 for support, and
P10,000.00 for moral damages;
(b) Plaintiffs Cleto B. Bagaipo and Agustina
Virtudes the sum of P17,000.00 for loss of
earning capacity of deceased Filipinas
Bagaipo, and P10,000.00 for moral damages;
and
(c) Plaintiffs Romeo Vasquez and Maximina
Cainay the sum of P10,000.00 by way of
moral damages by reason of the death of
Mario Marlon Vasquez.
On appeal, respondent Court reversed the
aforementioned judgment and absolved private
respondent from any and all liability.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, the basic
issue being the liability for damages of private
respondent for the presumptive death of petitioners'
children.
The trial Court found the defense of caso
fortuito untenable due to various decisive factors,
thus:
... It is an admitted fact that even before the
vessel left on its last voyage, its officers and
crew were already aware of the typhoon
brewing somewhere in the same general
direction to which the vessel was going. The
crew of the vessel took a calculated risk when
it proceeded despite the typhoon advisory.
This is quite evident from the fact that the
officers of the vessel had to conduct
conferences amongst themselves to decide
whether or not to proceed. The crew assumed
a greater risk when, instead of seeking shelter
in Romblon and other islands the vessel
passed en route, they decided to take a
change on the expected continuation of the
good weather the vessel was encountering,
and the possibility that the typhoon would veer
to some other directions. The eagerness of
the crew of the vessel to proceed on its
voyage and to arrive at its destination is
readily understandable. It is undeniably
lamentable, however, that they did so at the
risk of the lives of the passengers on board.
Contrariwise, respondent Appellate Court believed
that the calamity was caused solely and proximately
by fortuitous event which not even extraordinary
diligence of the highest degree could have guarded
against; and that there was no negligence on the part
of the common carrier in the discharge of its duties.
Upon the evidence and the applicable law, we sustain
the trial Court. "To constitute a caso fortuito that
would exempt a person from responsibility, it is
necessary that (1) the event must be independent of
the human will; (2) the occurrence must render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a
normal manner; and that (3) the obligor must be free
of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the
creditor."   In the language of the law, the event must
1 With respect to private respondent's submission that
have been impossible to foresee, or if it could be
foreseen, must have been impossible to avoid.   There
2 pursuant to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce  as
must be an entire exclusion of human agency from
the cause of injury or loss. 
3 suffice it to state that even in the cited case, it was
Turning to this case, before they sailed from the port
of Manila, the officers and crew were aware of
typhoon "Klaring" that was reported building up at 260
kms. east of Surigao. In fact, they had lashed all the
cargo in the hold before sailing in anticipation of
strong winds and rough waters.  They proceeded on
4
their way, as did other vessels that day. Upon
reaching Romblon, they received the weather report
that the typhoon was 154 kms. east southeast of
Tacloban and was moving west northwest.  Since they
5 67139, is hereby reinstated. No costs.
were still not within the radius of the typhoon and the
weather was clear, they deliberated and decided to
proceed with the course. At Jintotolo Island, the
typhoon was already reported to be reaching the
mainland of Samar.   They still decided to proceed
6
noting that the weather was still "good" although,
according to the Chief Forecaster of the Weather
Bureau, they were already within the typhoon
zone.   At Tanguingui Island, about 2:00 A.M. of May
7
16, 1966, the typhoon was in an area quite close to
Catbalogan, placing Tanguingui also within the
typhoon zone. Despite knowledge of that fact, they
again decided to proceed relying on the forecast that
the typhoon would weaken upon crossing the
mainland of Samar.   After about half an hour of
8
navigation towards Chocolate Island, there was a
sudden fall of the barometer accompanied by heavy
downpour, big waves, and zero visibility. The Captain
of the vessel decided to reverse course and face the
waves in the open sea but because the visibility did
not improve they were in total darkness and, as a
consequence, the vessel ran aground a reef and sank
on May 16, 1966 around 12:45 P.M. near Malapascua
Island somewhere north of the island of Cebu.
Under the circumstances, while, indeed, the typhoon
was an inevitable occurrence, yet, having been kept
posted on the course of the typhoon by weather
bulletins at intervals of six hours, the captain and crew
were well aware of the risk they were taking as they
hopped from island to island from Romblon up to
Tanguingui. They held frequent conferences, and
oblivious of the utmost diligence required of very
cautious persons,   they decided to take a calculated
9
risk. In so doing, they failed to observe that
extraordinary diligence required of them explicitly by
law for the safety of the passengers transported by
them with due regard for an circumstances   and 10
unnecessarily exposed the vessel and passengers to
the tragic mishap. They failed to overcome that
presumption of fault or negligence that arises in cases
of death or injuries to passengers. 11
While the Board of Marine Inquiry, which investigated
the disaster, exonerated the captain from any
negligence, it was because it had considered the
question of negligence as "moot and academic," the
captain having "lived up to the true tradition of the
profession." While we are bound by the Board's
factual findings, we disagree with its conclusion since
it obviously had not taken into account the legal
responsibility of a common carrier towards the safety
of the passengers involved.
the total loss of the vessel extinguished its liability
12
construed in Yangco vs. Laserna, 73 Phil. 330 [1941],
held that the liability of a shipowner is limited to the
value of the vessel or to the insurance thereon.
Despite the total loss of the vessel therefore, its
insurance answers for the damages that a shipowner
or agent may be held liable for by reason of the death
of its passengers.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby
REVERSED and the judgment of the then Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch V, in Civil Case No.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr.,
De la Fuente and Patajo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, 661 [1924];

Autria vs. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA 527
[1971].

2 Art. 1174, Civil Code; Lasam vs. Smith, 45

Phil. 657 [1924].

3 Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code,

Vol. V, p. 252.

4 T.s.n., August 8, 1967, p. 22.

5 Domestic Bulletin No. 16 of the Weather

Bureau.

6 Domestic Bulletin No. 17.

7 T.s.n. December 15, 1967, p. 21.

8 Domestic Bulletin No. 18.

9 Arts. 1755, 1756, Civil Code.

10 Art. 1733, Ibid.

11 Art. 1756, Ibid.

12 Art. 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly

liable for the indemnities in favor of third
persons which may arise from the conduct of
the captain in the vigilance over the goods
which the vessel carried; but he may exempt
himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel
with all her equipments and the freight he may
have earned during the voyage.